Intelligence is in the genes, researchers report

[RickHolland]

Intelligence is in the genes, researchers reported Tuesday in the journal Molecular Psychology.

The international team, led by Ian Deary of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and Peter Visscher of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, compared the DNA of more than 3,500 people, middle aged and older, who also had taken intelligence tests. They calculated that more than 40% of the differences in intelligence among test subjects was associated with genetic variation.

The genome-wide association study, as such broad-sweep genetic studies are known, suggested that humans inherit much of their smarts, and a large number of genes are involved.

Booster Shots asked Deary to answer a few questions about the research. The following is an edited version of our questions and his emailed responses.

What exactly were you looking for when you looked at test subjects' genetic information?

We studied over 3,500 people. We looked at over 500,000 individual locations on the chromosomal DNA where people are known to differ. We looked at the association between those DNA differences and two types of intelligence. One type of intelligence was on-the-spot thinking (fluid intelligence) and the other was vocabulary (crystallized intelligence).

You wrote in your paper that 40% of the variation in crystallized intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid intelligence is associated with genetic differences. How did you calculate those figures? And where does the rest of intelligence come from? Other genes, or environmental factors?

To estimate the proportion of variance associated with common genetic differences (in what are called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs) we used a new genetic statistics procedure invented by Professor Visscher and his colleagues in Brisbane, called GCTA. The rest of people's differences in those types of intelligence could come from genetic differences we were not able to capture, or from the environment.

Certainly, twin and adoption studies tell us that the environment makes an important contribution to intelligence differences throughout life, and especially in early childhood.

Is this the first time such a study has been attempted? How have scientists studied the relationship between genes and intelligence in the past?

There have been some studies looking at individual genes and sets of genes. And some smaller studies have been conducted with coarser genetic sweeps. This is the first study to use thousands of people, half a million genetic variants and to apply this new GCTA procedure to
estimate the genetic contribution directly from the genes.

Why would it be surprising that intelligence is an inherited trait? Many people might say this seems obvious.

It is not surprising to find that intelligence differences have some genetic foundation. Twin and adoption studies have been suggesting that for decades. But those studies make assumptions -- for example that the environment is just as similar for non-identical twins as for identical twins -- and people have questioned those assumptions.

Here, we bypass all that and test the DNA. What is not at all obvious is what the genetic contribution is. From our results, we can suggest that a substantial amount of the genetic contribution to intelligence differences comes from many, many small effects from genetic variants that are in linked with common variants (SNPs).

What parts of your study and analysis do you suspect might receive criticism, and on what grounds?

We don't point to individual genes among the 40%-50% of the variance we detected. We need far larger numbers to do that. We know now that it would be better to have ten times or more subjects than we tested.

We did not have exactly the same intelligence tests in each sample, so that might have led us to underestimate some effects. The GCTA procedure is not easy to understand, so it is hard for people to get their head round how the estimate for the genetic contribution is derived.

http://www.latimes.com/health/booste...,3811470.story

[P.E.]

I love subjective horseshit maps like those that put the Asians ahead of Europe.

Intelligence as a word is very misleading by modern understandings of the definition; for most people, it completely ignores creativity.

This is just more modern one-size-fits-all international politically-correct Jew world bullshit, because Europids, Mongoloids, whatever else, can all agree 1+1 = 2. They can all agree in a C++ loop there is the (initialization:test:action), but they cannot agree what looks good, what is creative, what is a great product of the emotions.

Who could expect much different from a world full of neurotic confused zombies who, much like a computer program, see 1's and 0's in their actions, all assigned by authority. For the computer, 1=true, 0=false. For the modern international citizen, 1=acceptable, 0=unacceptable.

It's a bad higher-level programming language called morality, which was created on top of a more powerful lower-level one called reasoned and derived customs. But, like all higher-level programming languages making it easier for the developer, assigned morality is easier than reasoned customs. But all morality came from original customs.

Like a Frenchman being kind and courteous back in the days when his town was 100% Frenchman, his blood relatives. Now, the Frenchman has a twitch feeling that he is 'wrong' to hate the sand niggers in his town, his 'neighbors'.

People always pay the price for shortcuts. Just as the ASM developer who plays down near the machine-level code is more knowledgeable and powerful (but it is more challenging to understand ASM than Java/C++), as is the man who looks past morality, and asks where it came from, and what the condition was when it was derived. Just as the 'hacker' is one who employs his reverse engineering skills to play with the underlying lower level code, but in truth he REVEALS TRUTH that is called a 'security hole', the so-called 'immoralist' today operates in the same way, not necessarily claiming all moralities are bad, but like the hacker, exposing the very real holes for everyone to see, always deconstructing every morality code thrown at him claiming 1=good, 0=evil, to see if down lower these 1's and 0's really line up.

With this understood, it doesn't make sense for whites to want any less than all non-whites fucking gone. David Duke is an example of the poisoned Christology moralist in this regard, as he is operating on the higher-level poisoned code, not asking himself why, afraid of the lower level truth.

You have to ask such 'good Christologists of the Church of Saul' the following: If 1000 retarded, sex-crazed, disease-ridden mutants were suddenly sprung up in every town in the world, out of thin air, out of magic, you would certainly feel different from your previous state.

Would your good Christologist side be an apologist? Take them in? Not be ruthless?

They'll squirm and bullshit and blah blah. The truth is, they'd want them gone in reality.

How is it different from imagining the niggers and other non-whites gone, and then suddenly being sprang into the situation we're in now? We'd be freaking the fuck out in just the same way.

The stuff American professors were saying in the late 19th / early 20th century academia about the negro problem resonate this. All that was hushed up though by time FDR and his horse-faced bitch were running the show. People like Duke are - at best - trying to slow-reverse it, and at worse truly believe their equality in the world crap. The Jews are smart enough to know where that all leads though, smart enough not to give an inch; and especially not to some white guy with his fluffy white dog trying to use their own proto-Marxism.

[Henry.]

Intelligence is in the genes,

The Jews have been telling us this for years.

Franz Boas said that Levis were way smarter than 'Wranglers'

He wore them all the time on campus.

[RickHolland]

IQ by country (including the non-indigenous populations).

[A.G.]

To examine whether the Roma (Gypsy) population of Serbia, like other South Asian population groups, average lower than Europeans on "g", the general factor of intelligence, we tested 323 16- to 66-year-olds (111 males; 212 females) in three different communities over a two-year-period on the Raven's Colored and/or Standard Progressive Matrices and four measures of executive function. Out of the total of 60 Matrices, the Roma solved an average of 29, placing them at the 3rd percentile on 1993 U.S. norms, yielding an IQ equivalent of 70. On the executive function tests, the Roma averaged at about the level of Serbian 10-year-olds. The Matrices showed a small mean sex difference favoring males. External validity was demonstrated by correlating the scores on Matrices with measures such as cranial capacity (r = 0.13, P less than 0.01), spousal similarity (r = 0.17, P less than 0.05), age at birth of first child (r = 0.26, P less than 0.01), number of offspring (r = -0.20, P less than 0.01), and responsible social attitudes (r = 0.10, P less than 0.05). Comparisons with extant data showed that items found difficult or easy by the Roma were those found difficult or easy by White, Indian, Colored, and Black South African 14- to 16-year-olds and by Black South African undergraduates (rs = 0.90). There was no evidence of any idiosyncratic cultural effect. Instead, Roma/non-Roma differences were found to be most pronounced on "g". This was shown by item-total correlations (estimates of the item's "g" loading), which predicted the magnitude of Roma/non-Roma differences on those same items, regardless of from which sample the item-total correlations were calculated, and by confirmatory factor analysis. The results indicate the remarkable cross-cultural generalizability of item properties across South Asians, Europeans, and sub-Saharan Africans and that these reflect "g" more than culturally specific ways of thinking.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal...accno=EJ748927

Gypsy IQ was estimated to be 70 points lower than the African American of 85 points

...

I wonder why Gypsies are so stupid?

Also my genetic test told me that im of "normal intelligence"...thanks God

I also wonder how important IQs are for being human or if creativity and feelings are more important? I mean the Neandherthals were intelligent humanoid beings but they had no creativity and produced no art, the first art appears with the homo sapiens - the human.

[Bruce Howard]

http://www.businessinsider.com/20-sc...e-2010-12?op=1


20 Scientifically-Proven Signs You're Smarter Than Average

Alyson Shontell | Dec. 10, 2010,

Let's face it: some of us are smarter than others. But is it because of nature or nurture?

Many scientific studies have been conducted to determine the cause of high IQs, and a lot of it boils down to genetics. According to researchers, psychologists and scientists, personal beliefs and physical appearance can also indicate intelligence.

We pulled research from Fox News, CBS, Psychology Today, The Times and more to bring you 20 scientifically-proven signs you're smart. Keep in mind, correlation does not always equal causation!


1. You use recreational drugs

"Very bright individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than very dull individuals," says Psychology Today. They ran the same study in the U.S. and found similar results.

2. You're a liberal

CNN writes, "These preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

3. You're a guy who doesn't sleep around

The same is not true of females; being monogamous does not deem them more intelligent. "This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference," CNN writes.

4. You don't believe in God

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa found atheism is linked to higher IQs.

5. You're the oldest childThe New York Times writes, "The new findings, from a landmark study published [June 2007], showed that eldest children had a slight but significant edge in I.Q. — an average of three points over the closest sibling.

6. Your mother had really bad morning sickness

According to Reuters, "Researchers found that among 121 Canadian children between the ages of 3 and 7, those whose mothers had suffered morning sickness scored higher, on average, on certain tests of IQ, memory and language skills."

7. You were a teenage virgin
"Mariah Mantsun Cheng, a research associate, and J. Richard Udry, professor of maternal and child health and sociology, both from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, conducted the study. They discovered that 39.8 percent of boys with an average IQ score have had sex while 29.2 percent of boys with an IQ above 110 have had sex.

8. You come from a smart family

NewScientist.com writes the findings of one study, "Genes have a very strong influence over how certain parts of our brains develop, scientists in the US and Finland have found. And the parts most influenced are those that govern our cognitive ability. In short, you inherit your IQ."

9. Your mother didn't eat tuna or other Mercury-containing food while she was pregnant with you

CBS writes, "The Mount Sinai Center for Children's Health and the Environment combined a number of previous studies to determine hundreds of thousands of babies are born every year with lower IQ associated with mercury exposure.

10. You don't smoke cigarettes

DailyMail reports, "Young people who smoke regularly are likely to have markedly lower intelligence levels than those who do not smoke, and, according to the study of 20,000 young adults, the heavier the smoker, the lower the IQ.

11. You were breast-fed

According to ScienceDaily.com, "In two studies of breast-fed infants involving more than 3,000 children in Britain and New Zealand, breastfeeding was found to raise intelligence an average of nearly 7 IQ points if the children had a particular version of a gene called FADS2."

12. You took music lessons

Psychcentral.com reports, "There is growing evidence that musicians have structurally and functionally different brains compared with non-musicians.

"In particular, the areas of the brain used to process music are larger or more active in musicians. Even just starting to learn a musical instrument can change the neurophysiology of the brain."
In addition to boosting your IQ, musical training also helps your mood, memory, and ability to learn languages.

13. You're not an avid texter

According to The Times Online, using electronics too much, like texting non-stop, can put you in a state of "infomania," which can harm your IQ.
"This rate of decline in intelligence compares unfavorably with the four-point drop in IQ associated with smoking marijuana, according to British researchers, who have labeled the fleeting phenomenon of enhanced stupidity as “infomania”."

14. You're left handed

Dr. Oz says this is because of the way the brain develops when a baby is in its mother's womb. "The left brain normally controls your right side, which is really powerful," he says. "[In left-handed people], it allows the other side, the right brain, to become an equal partner."

15. You're a night owl

Yahoo News reports, "Sleep researchers tend to divide people into two groups, explains zoologist Robert Alison in the Winnipeg Free Press, based on whether they exhibit 'morningness' or 'eveningness.' A recent study claims that eveningness is an evolutionary advancement that marks out 'more intelligent individuals,' while those with lower IQs tend to restrict their activities primarily to daytime."

16. You're tall

A Princeton study found, "“As early as age 3 — before schooling has had a chance to play a role —and throughout childhood, taller children perform significantly better on cognitive tests.” This suggests that the intelligence is nature, not nurture, although they couldn't explain the tall gene phenomenon.

17. You have blue eyes

Studies have shown that light-eyed people are more intelligent than dark. Don't worry if you have brown eyes, you have your own set of strengths.
Fox News reports, "Light-eyed individuals and even light-eyed animals perform better at behaviors requiring delay, self-pacing, or non-reactors, while dark-eyed individuals and animals perform better at behaviors requiring speed, sensitivity or reactivity, according to a paper authored by University of Louisville professor emeritus Joanne Rowe."

18. You have a big brain

Michael McDanielle of Virginia Commonwealth University conducted research on this topic. Here are his findings:
"The relationship between brain volume and intelligence has been a topic of a scientific debate since at least the 1830s. To address the debate, a meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence was conducted. Based on 37 samples across 1530 people, the population correlation was estimated at 0.33. The correlation is higher for females than males. It is also higher for adults than children. For all age and sex groups, it is clear that brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence."

19.You're internet savvy

Reuters reports, "An online survey of 895 Web users and experts found more than three-quarters believe the Internet will make people smarter in the next 10 years, according to results released on Friday.
"But 21 percent said the Internet would have the opposite effect and could even lower the IQs of some who use it a lot."
Time will tell, but most experts believe the internet benefits intelligence.

20. You're skinny


The Telegraph reports one study's findings based on a series of memory tests:
"The new five-year study of more than 2,200 adults claims to have found a link between obesity and the decline in a person's cognitive function. The research, conducted by French scientists, involved men and women aged between 32 and 62 taking four mental ability tests that were then repeated five years later.

"The researchers found that people with a Body Mass Index – a measure of body fat – of 20 or less could recall 56 per cent of words in a vocabulary test, while those who were obese, with a BMI of 30 or higher, could remember only 44 per cent.

"The fatter subjects also showed a higher rate of cognitive decline when they were retested five years later: their recall dropped to 37.5 per cent, whereas those with a healthy weight retained their level of recall."

[Crowe]

I don't agree with most of those, but I've noticed just from personal experience in dealing with people that the more religious someone is, the less intelligent they are. Why? Because they let their religion cloud their logic and judgement. Keeping your mind in that state is a constant mental stupor.

[George Dumas]

Being religious is as to not having the smarts to go against authority if justified.
You need a certain intelligence to see through lies.